Political science + Green party | The Guardianhttps://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science+politics/green-party
Indexen-gbGuardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. 2016Fri, 09 Dec 2016 17:44:02 GMT2016-12-09T17:44:02Zen-gbGuardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. 2016The Guardianhttps://assets.guim.co.uk/images/guardian-logo-rss.c45beb1bafa34b347ac333af2e6fe23f.pnghttps://www.theguardian.com
Science v Greens? We're all greens now | James Murrayhttps://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/aug/09/science-greens
Just as scientists are more than Big Bang Theory's Sheldon Cooper, greens aren't all Swampy<p>I'm not sure whether it is wise to start a science blog with a reference to The Big Bang Theory, what with its depiction of scientists as socially illiterate uber-nerds, but here goes. The debate on "Science vs the Greens" that has played out over the past few days reminds me of the episode where Dr Sheldon Cooper tries to teach Penny "a little physics", starting with the question "What is physics?". To paraphrase Dr Cooper, if we are to debate science and the greens first we have to ask ourselves what is "science" and who or what are "the greens".</p><p>You could write a book on what constitutes "science", but let's assume most people understand the term as referring to knowledge gained through observation, experimentation, and systematic rational study. However, the term "greens" is more problematic. The majority of contributors to this series have defined "greens" narrowly as a deep green constituency embodied by the views of Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the Green Party as well-meaning but naive eco-warriors. This is understandable. There is a tendency to regard the green movement as the preserve of a hippy idealists – personally I blame <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/jul/09/greenpolitics.transport">Swampy</a>. </p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/aug/09/science-greens">Continue reading...</a>Science policyScienceGreen partyGreen politicsEnvironmentPoliticsFri, 09 Aug 2013 13:57:00 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/aug/09/science-greensPhotograph: Christopher Thomond/GuardianThere is a tendency to regard the green movement as the preserve of hippy idealists epitomised by Swampy. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/GuardianPhotograph: Christopher Thomond/GuardianThere is a tendency to regard the green movement as the preserve of hippy idealists epitomised by Swampy. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/GuardianJames Murray2013-08-09T13:57:00ZScientists love to hate greens, because what greens say matters | Simon Lewishttps://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/aug/02/scientists-greens
<strong>Simon Lewis </strong>takes science and the green movement to a relationship therapist<p>If a relationship therapist sat the UK's scientists and the green movement on their couch and asked them how they felt, the discussion, I suspect, would be heated. There is something about environmentalists that manages to irritate and aggravate many scientists. </p><p>In Mark Henderson's <a href="http://geekmanifesto.wordpress.com/">Geek Manifesto</a>, only the greens gets a chapter all to themselves about their crimes against science. Last year saw a rare scientist-led political demonstration rallying a "geekmob". Of all the world's critical issues to address, and all the powerful institutions to be held to account, what was their choice of action? A counter-demonstration to <a href="http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/05/green-groups-and-scientists-in-anti-gm-battle-amid-sun-cheese-and-folk-music.html">a small anti-GM crops rally</a>. </p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/aug/02/scientists-greens">Continue reading...</a>Science policyScienceGreen partyPoliticsGreen politicsEnvironmentFri, 02 Aug 2013 11:07:00 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/aug/02/scientists-greensPhotograph: Stephen Welstead/CorbisStrained relationship: most geeks count themselves as environmentalists, so why do greens inspire such animosity? Photograph: Stephen Welstead/CorbisPhotograph: Stephen Welstead/CorbisStrained relationship: most geeks count themselves as environmentalists, so why do greens inspire such animosity? Photograph: Stephen Welstead/CorbisSimon Lewis2013-08-02T11:07:00ZThird way: 'partnership scientists' can tackle environmental challenges | Dave Ticknerhttps://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/aug/01/partnership-scientists-environmental-challenges
As part of our series on science and the green movement, WWF's <strong>Dave Tickner</strong> considers the environmental challenges facing Ruaha in Tanzania<p>You may not have heard of <a href="http://www.wwf.org.uk/what_we_do/safeguarding_the_natural_world/rivers_and_lakes/where_we_work/east_africa/the_great_ruaha_tanzania.cfm.">Ruaha</a>. Situated in southern Tanzania, it's one of Africa's best kept secrets. It's a region, a river, a national park and, increasingly, a problem. </p><p>Put simply, the Ruaha problem is this: Rural economies in the headwaters rely on ever-expanding irrigated agriculture. Pressures on the river are increasing. The flow to Ruaha National Park (one of the largest in East Africa) is diminishing. Impacts on wildlife are unquantified but probably substantial. The operators of two dams that lie further downstream, generating a significant chunk of Tanzania's power, are also worried. The lack of water may affect hydroelectricity generation. If dam operation is impaired, the impacts may be felt in towns and cities nationwide.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/aug/01/partnership-scientists-environmental-challenges">Continue reading...</a>Science policyScienceGreen politicsGreen partyEnvironmentClimate changeWaterAccess to waterGlobal developmentThu, 01 Aug 2013 16:17:00 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/aug/01/partnership-scientists-environmental-challengesDave Tickner2013-08-01T16:17:00ZEnvironmentalists must redefine what 'progress' means | Adam Ramsayhttps://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/aug/01/environmentalists-redefine-progress-means
Humankind is made for greater things than circulating plastic tat. Science can help us see this<p>"What's this?" I asked my nephew. He was soon to turn two, and I thought, perhaps, he would be able to identify the plastic toy in my hand as a "dinosaur". "Edmontosaurus", he told me. I checked the label on its foot. He was right.</p><p>Just before his fifth birthday, he corrected me on a question of astronomy: "No, Venus is hotter than Mercury. Mercury is closer to the sun, but Venus has poisonous gases which keep the heat in". I used to know that, I remembered, before I grew up and got boring.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/aug/01/environmentalists-redefine-progress-means">Continue reading...</a>Science policyScienceGreen politicsEnvironmentSocietyGreen partyPoliticsThu, 01 Aug 2013 11:25:14 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/aug/01/environmentalists-redefine-progress-meansPhotograph: Jim Tiller/APTransit of Venus. The purpose of civilisation has to be about more than the wealthy few accumulating more and more stuff. Photograph: Jim Tiller/APPhotograph: Jim Tiller/APTransit of Venus. The purpose of civilisation has to be about more than the wealthy few accumulating more and more stuff. Photograph: Jim Tiller/APAdam Ramsay2013-08-01T11:25:14ZCan you be sceptical about GM but believe in climate change? | Alice Bellhttps://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/jul/31/sceptical-gm-climate-change
Greens aren't anti-science, but who'd be dumb enough to be pro- the whole of science?<p>A friend asked me recently, how can someone be sceptical about GM and yet also believe in climate change? This post is an attempt to answer her. </p><p>If you scream "I totally heart science, the Royal Society has teh awesomist mindz ev-er, you cannot dispute their pure and good genius" in one breath before voicing suspicion at these strange, corrupt and elitist would-be-wizards in pay of big pharma/ag/oil/ [insert your own bogey-man] in another, then yes, you are being a bit silly. But such silliness is pretty rare. </p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/jul/31/sceptical-gm-climate-change">Continue reading...</a>Climate changeGeneticsAgricultureScience policyScienceClimate changeGMGreen politicsEnvironmentGreen partyPoliticsWed, 31 Jul 2013 15:40:06 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/jul/31/sceptical-gm-climate-changePhotograph: Richard Sellers/AllstarIt's convenient for UK environment secretary Owen Paterson to use the anti-GM stance of many greens as a sign the movement is wrong-headed about the whole of science. Photograph: AllstarPhotograph: Richard Sellers/AllstarIt's convenient for UK environment secretary Owen Paterson to use the anti-GM stance of many greens as a sign the movement is wrong-headed about the whole of science. Photograph: AllstarAlice Bell2013-07-31T15:40:06ZThe greens are far from "finished" | Andy Stirlinghttps://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/jul/30/greens-science-policy
The green movement must ensure its relationship with science helps open up ideas of progress, not limit them<p>"The Greens are finished" chants Tim Montgomery – his <a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article3821935.ece">Times editorial</a> joining <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jul/26/rightwing-desperation-media-attacks-greens">heavily orchestrated</a> wishful thinking last week. But an opposite concern is ironically more serious. If judged by its roots, the greatest danger for the green movement lies more in the trappings of success, than in Montgomery's asserted "failure". And there also emerge here some important implications for Enlightenment traditions of science.</p><p>Myriad strivings for "liberation", "equality", "internationalism" and "nonviolence" flow vibrantly in "environmentalism". Remember "peace" alongside the "green"? Roots of these restless challenges are as old as hierarchy itself. They remind that ecological – like human – destruction is a pathology of over-concentrated, under-accountable power. And few instruments are more potent than the shaping of language and knowledge. So, for decades, green understandings and innovations were ridiculed, misrepresented and excluded by worldwide political, business and scientific establishments. Yet now, these mainstream voices compete to sound the "greenest". Hence Montgomery's desperation!</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/jul/30/greens-science-policy">Continue reading...</a>Science policyScienceGreen partyPoliticsEnvironmentTue, 30 Jul 2013 17:03:00 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/jul/30/greens-science-policyAndy Stirling2013-07-30T17:03:00ZThe green movement is not pro-science | Robert Wilsonhttps://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/jul/30/green-movement-science
If we are to win against climate change, greens need to replace spin with sober analysis<p>Do many environmentalists hold anti-scientific positions? This idea, put forward by environmental journalist <a href="http://e360.yale.edu/feature/why_are_environmentalists_taking_anti-science_positions/">Fred Pearce</a> and <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/05/24/is-environmentalism-anti-science/ ">others</a>, may have received some pushback (eg <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/political-science/2013/jul/29/scientists-greens-children-enlightenment">Anne Chapman earlier in this series</a>) but for me, it is merely a statement of the obvious.</p><p>Consider that great scientific battleground of the early 21st century: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryonic_stem_cell">embryonic stem cell research</a>. Here is an issue where too many greens hold views indistinguishable from those of the Vatican. Greenpeace brought and won <a href=" http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/oct/18/european-patents-embryonic-stem-cells"> a lawsuit against the German scientist Oliver Brüstle </a> who wanted to patent a method of turning human embryonic stem cells into neurons. In <a href="http://www.kenanmalik.com/debates/greenpeace_embryo.html">a debate with writer and neuroscientist Kenan Malik</a> Greenpeace claimed they were not opposed to embryonic stem cell research. Yet <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/Greenpeace-welcomes-European-Court-of-Justice-ruling-on-stem-cells-patents/">their own press release</a> at the time made it clear that they were opposed to it. </p><p>Personally, I remain concerned about the associated health risks, the commodification of eggs and embryos, and the potential exploitation of women. Increasing research suggests that there are a number of promising alternatives, for example adult stem cell research, and umbilical cord stem cell research.</p><p>It is a permanent and definite and complete opposition based on a view that there will always be major uncertainties. It is the nature of the technology, indeed it is the nature of science, that there will not be any absolute proof. </p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/jul/30/green-movement-science">Continue reading...</a>Science policyAgricultureScienceGMNuclear powerGreen partyPoliticsTue, 30 Jul 2013 15:43:00 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/jul/30/green-movement-sciencePhotograph: David Hoffman Photo Library / Al/AlamyProtesters uproot GM crops. Last year's failed attempt to destroy GM wheat in Rothamsted was supported by the Green Party. Photograph: AlamyPhotograph: David Hoffman Photo Library / Al/AlamyProtesters uproot GM crops. Last year's failed attempt to destroy GM wheat in Rothamsted was supported by the Green Party. Photograph: AlamyRobert Wilson2013-07-30T15:43:00ZLike scientists, greens are children of the Enlightenment | Anne Chapmanhttps://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/jul/29/scientists-greens-children-enlightenment
The green movement is not anti-science. It just knows science is not enough<p>The green movement obviously owes a great deal to science: the impacts of pollution, the threat of climate change, the loss of species, can only be spoken about because of the scientific research that has made them known. Without this knowledge from science the green movement in its current form would not exist.</p><p>Like scientists, greens are children of the Enlightenment. Both tend to think that decisions are, or at least should be, made on the basis of rational arguments, by appeal to the evidence. However, greens are also children of Romanticism. This legacy makes them aware of the limits of science, both in the sense of the limits to its knowledge, and that science is not sufficient to tell us how to live. Science is not enough.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/jul/29/scientists-greens-children-enlightenment">Continue reading...</a>Science policyScienceGreen partyPoliticsGMNuclear powerEnvironmentMon, 29 Jul 2013 10:53:00 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/jul/29/scientists-greens-children-enlightenmentPhotograph: Barry Batchelor/PAGreens fear that once a GM organism has been released it will not be possible to get it back if we later discover it is not as benign as we thought. Photograph: PAPhotograph: Barry Batchelor/PAGreens fear that once a GM organism has been released it will not be possible to get it back if we later discover it is not as benign as we thought. Photograph: PAAnne Chapman2013-07-29T10:53:00Z